Yesterday I flew to Seattle, Washington, to meet with the staff of U.S. Senator Patty Murray. I was in D.C. a few months ago, meeting with the Senator’s staff on Capitol Hill because of the Senator’s leadership role in a bill that would provide IVF benefits to our wounded vets.

As an educational non-profit, we are keen to make sure that when a benefit is provided for one, we don’t harm another. So we work to educate legislators and their staff members on both the benefits and harms of various proposals.

Maggie Eastman, from our film Maggie’s Story, lives in Washington State. Who better to help inform a legislator of the perils of egg donation than a member of her own constituency who has experienced those harms?!?

We had a very good meeting for about an hour discussing Maggie’s experience as a ten time egg donor now living with Stage IV breast cancer. And we discussed the risks to women’s health from exposure to fertility drugs as well as the corruption of an industry that preys on women’s altruism and financial need.

Maggie and I both left encouraged that we not only informed this staffer, who admitted not knowing much at all about the procedures, risks, and practices of the industry, but also knowing that she shared our concerns for women’s health. The staffer left with a copy of Eggploitation and online access to watch Maggie’s Story.

We will be following up with Senator Murray’s staff and keeping them updated.

1. When is it Too Old to Have a Baby?

Another post-menopausal woman (age 62), along with her 78 year old partner, has just given birth, making her Australia’s oldest mother, thanks to IVF. The Australian Medical Association has denounced this birth as “selfish and wrong” with no consideration for the child’s best interest. This is in addition to the considerable health risks for a woman of advanced maternal age and the baby she is carrying. IVF treatments in Australia are cut off for women at age 53 since that is the age of “natural menopause.” One expert said there is no legal barrier to seeking IVF at later ages, but to us it seems clear that doctors should refuse such requests.

2. Why do We Allow Incentives for Disconnecting Human Lives from Parents, Heritage, and History?

Speaking of smelling things down under, Australian officials at the National Health and Research Council are warning IVF clinics that they are not allowed to pay fixed prices for eggs and sperm. In Australia, those who donate their gametes are only allowed to have “reasonable expenses” reimbursed. Truly paying donors is seen as inducement, which under Australian federal law can be punished with up to 15 years of jail time. Unfortunately, however, the laws are not clear on what constitutes reasonable expenses. Pro-fertility-industry voices argue the demand for egg and sperm are high, so clinics are offering payment to meet the demand. Others point out that organ donors are not paid nor are people paid for blood donations. “Why then are we allowing IVF clinics to incentivise the relinquishment of sperm, eggs, and embryos, which equates to a human life being disconnected from their parents . . . cultural heritage [and] medical history.”

3. Dear Colorado: Death Doesn’t Cure Anything

Colorado was, thankfully, able to stop a bill seeking to legalize physician assisted suicide last year. Proponents of a Colorado End-of-Life Options Act have gathered signatures and are moving forward again. Our good friends at Not Dead Yet and ADAPT organized a protest at the Secretary of State’s office to make it clear that “Death doesn’t cure anything.” We will be watching developments in Colorado closely, and will help educate on and push back against this bad bill in whatever ways we can.

4. Newsweek Fail

A brief piece from Newsweek provides an overview of both current and coming treatments for infertility, but makes absolutely no mention of the health risks, the unknowns, or the ethical questions that arise in any of them. All are treated simply as options available, which can simply be selected depending on need or desire. Such thin reporting is worse than unhelpful; it is misleading. There is much more involved, much more that deserves to be considered, as Dr. Brent Waters reminded us at this year’s Ramsey Dinner:

Ramsey foresaw much of this in his work on what was then the new reproductive technologies and breakthroughs in genetics that seemingly promised a day when parents could design more desirable children. Ramsey warned that it is perilous to transform the natural procreation of children into reproductive projects, for in the latter, offspring are effectively reduced to artifacts of the parents’ will; children are made rather than begotten.

Why is this perilous? Because the relationship between maker and made is far different than a relationship based on the equality of being, and of being only human. He warned that the value of humans cannot be increased by presumably making them more desirable, but rather, humans are to be cherished simply for who they are. Ramsey’s voice still beckons us to ponder how much further down the road of artifice should we travel.

1. Can You Imagine That Anonymous Sperm and Egg “Donation” are a Problem?

CBS’s Sunday Morning program this week ran an item on “The Flourishing Business of Building Family Trees,” highlighting widespread interest in genealogy and the businesses that are helping people in their searches. The report is bookended by the moving story of 55 year-old Kevin, a man who is “only now finding out who he really is.” He grew up “with no real family history” and was “basically a stranger to himself,” the reporter’s voiceover tells us. Kevin asks, “Can you imagine growing up knowing nothing about your health, your family?” You see, Kevin was adopted as an infant, and thereby cut off from the kinds of information many take for granted about themselves. Notably absent in the report is any mention of donor conception, which has exactly the same result, the same effects, sometimes shrouded in secrets and lies. Why isn’t donor conception even mentioned? Read on . . .

2. Celebrities, IVF, Surrogacy, and Who Knows What Else

“12 Celebrities Who Have Opened Up About IVF And Surrogacy” perhaps provides one reason why there’s virtually no discussion in the media about the ways in which people who are donor-conceived are cut off from knowing the answers to basic questions about their origins, their lives, and their identities. While, as the title indicates, the article discusses IVF and surrogacy, it does not mention donor conception, although we know from other reports that celebrities (and many others) routinely make use of anonymous sperm and egg donation. In some cases, celebrities even make use of anonymous surrogates — women who do not know who they are carrying a child for. Somehow this aspect of celebrity culture is not only immune from criticism, it is held up as something to be celebrated. Pay close attention to the magazine covers when you’re in the checkout line at the supermarket. Neither celebration nor silence make it right, though.

3. Now is the Time to Ponder the Morals

Last week I mentioned the doctor in China who is proposing full body transplants. A neurobiologist this week looks at that proposal and other research being conducted on reviving trauma patients, suspended animation, and neuroscience, and points us back 200 years to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.”

One has to wonder, “What might actual death experiences do?” Furthermore, what might the possibility of invincibility do to each of us, or to all of us as a society? How might we behave if there is no risk of dying? By attempting to redefine death, we will change what it means to be alive, what it means to be human, and what it means to be ourselves. Maybe most of those changes will be for the better, but some may also be for the worse.

One thing is certain, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has inspired these questions for two centuries and there’s never been a more essential time to ponder them than right now.

Never a more essential time to ponder the moral questions. I could not agree more.

4. The Chilling Future of Human Reproduction

Four years ago, Jennifer highlighted Stanford law professor Hank Greely’s assertion that within the next fifty years the majority of babies in developed countries will be made in the lab because no one will want to leave their children’s lives to nature’s chance. In a recent NPR interview in support of his new book, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, Greely expanded on this assertion.

I think we will see an increased and broad use of embryo selection. I would be careful to set the time frame at 20-40 years. I think we’ll actually see a world where most babies born to people with good health coverage will be conceived in the lab. People will make about a hundred embryos, each will have its whole genome tested, and the parents will be [asked … “Tell] us what you want to know and then tell us what embryo you want.”

This is absolutely chilling, particularly in terms of routinization and scale. The other side of selecting, of course, is discarding. Human beings should never, ever be selected or discarded based on the traits or characteristics they possess or lack. Never. Human beings are to be received as gifts, not mass manufactured as products. Human beings are to be begotten, not made.

5. Anonymous Father’s Day FREE for only a Few More Days

We are very thankful that we have been able to make our Anonymous Father’s Day available for free on YouTube this month. If you haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, do so ASAP. And please spread the word to your networks so that as many people as possible can have the opportunity to see this important film.

If you haven’t yet seen this powerful film—an Official Selection of the California Independent Film Festival and the Rome International Film Festival—now is the time. If you’ve already seen it, here’s your chance to watch it again.

Most important, please share this with others. Sperm donation has received very little attention by society, so help us raise awareness of the realities of sperm donation. What are those realities? Watch the film to find out!

Surrogacy is fast becoming one of the major issues of the 21st century—celebrities and everyday people are increasingly using surrogates to build their families. But the practice is fraught with complex implications for women, children, and families. What is the impact on the women who serve as surrogates and on the children who are born from surrogacy? In what ways might money complicate things? What about altruistic surrogacy done for a family member or close friend? Is surrogacy a beautiful, loving act or does it simply degrade pregnancy to a service and a baby to a product? Can we find a middle ground? Should we even look for one?

Thousands of donor-conceived people have a deep longing to know who they belong to, where they come from, and who they look like. What is it like to grow up not knowing who your biological father is or if you have any siblings? What is it like to find out that the man you thought was your dad is not your biological father, that your true biological father donated his sperm and is known only by a number? How does it impact your self-perception, the choices you make, and your view of life and the world? Donor-conceived people are demanding answers to these basic questions about their origins, their lives, and their identities.

The infertility industry in the United States has grown to a multi-billion dollar business. What is its main commodity? Human eggs. Young women all over the world are solicited by ads—via college campus bulletin boards, social media, online classifieds—offering up to $100,000 for their “donated” eggs, to “help make someone’s dream come true.” But who is this egg donor? Is she treated justly? What are the short- and long-term risks to her health? The answers to these questions will disturb you . . .

1. Call for Open, Transparent Discussion Denied

Last Friday, 150 scientists, physicians, and bioethicists released an open letter calling for the World Health Organization (WHO) to consider moving or postponing the upcoming Olympic Games because of how much we simply do not know about the Zika virus, which is epidemic in Brazil. Specifically, the call is for “a transparent, evidence-based” discussion of the risks of continuing to move forward. The WHO responded: “cancelling or changing the location of the 2016 Olympics will not significantly alter the international spread of Zika virus.” This does not come close to addressing the many, detailed concerns raised in the open letter. In failing to accept this reasonable request, particularly in the midst of so much that is still unknown about Zika, the WHO is failing at its responsibility to protect global public health.

2. In 2016, Donor Anonymity Does Not Exist

The journal Human Reproduction in April published an opinion article entitled, “The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business.” The authors’ research indicates that between the increase in laws that allow donor-conceived individuals to know who their sperm or egg donor was, and the rise of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, we are rapidly approaching the point at which most anyone who is donor conceived will be able not only to find out that fact, but also be able to locate genetic relatives. Thus, many to most of the people who were sperm or egg donors will lose the ability to remain anonymous. The article makes several recommendations about making sure that everyone is informed about the impossibility of remaining anonymous and about the impossibility of keeping donor conception a secret. We recommend instead putting a stop to third-party conception entirely. This will put an end to the perceived need for anonymity and secrecy altogether, while protecting the bonds of origin and kinship.

Our friend Wesley Smith drew our attention to the announcement that StemCells, Inc., a company that just a few months ago was touting the promise of its clinical trial using stem cells from fetuses to treat spinal cord injury, has decided to end the study mid-stage and is shutting down the company. Notice that the announcement that they are shuttering the project and the company does not mention the source of the stem cells, nor do the news reports mention that there is a good bit of research going on using adult stem cells to treat spinal cord injury.

4. Opening Today, Coming Next Week

Me Before You is a new film based on a best-selling novel by the same name. All indications are that the film is true to the book’s (spoiler alert) assisted suicide/euthanasia ending. Our friends at Not Dead Yet are organizing protests at many theaters because of the movie’s false and dangerous narrative “that if you’re a disabled person, you’re better off dead.” We will have a full review of the film next week.

5. When Progress Sours

Senior bioethicist Daniel Calahan is not someone with whom we would always agree, but in a recent column he draws attention to the fact that “the faith and hope of progress has some dark shadows, ignored at our peril.” That is to say, in some cases, “what began as beneficial progress created unforeseen harms as it moved forward . . . What we have yet to learn is how to stop, and turn around, the progress when it starts going sour.” This is all the more reason to listen closely to the stories of those who have been affected by the harms of such “soured progress,” like the stories featured in Maggie’s Story, Breeders: A Subclass of Women?, Anonymous Father’s Day, and Eggsploitation.

Bonus: 30% off Trilogy Sale Begins Monday

Speaking of our films, beginning on Monday, June 6, we will be offering our trilogy of films at 30% off when purchased through our Facebook shop. These films bring the truth about third-party reproduction to light with powerful testimonials. Be sure to like our Facebook page to keep up with all of the latest on bioethics every day. This sale will run for only a limited time, so order early and often.

Near the end of the evening, Nathan George, a member of the CBC Board of Directors, gave a personal testimony of how he came to know about the Center for Bioethics and Culture, and why he enthusiastically supports our work. As I was listening to him speak, I knew I wanted to share his words with you. A lightly edited transcript of his remarks is below. I hope you find it as encouraging as I did.

Jennifer

Remarks by Nathan George

CBC Board Member Nathan George

I have to confess; this is the first time I’ve spoken before a crowd or for an event like this. However, between you and me, I was pleased to see on the program that this is not a speech but just a personal testimony. So the pressure is off and I’m just here to tell you my story, which is really a story about why I’m here. Perhaps you’ll find a reason for why you’re here, if you haven’t already.

I met Jennifer Lahl through a triangulation of sorts. In early 2009, two former board members independently both strongly recommended that I meet Jennifer. Eventually, through an intimate and stimulating dinner at the home of James and Patricia Shinn, I also met long-time CBC consultant Wesley Smith and his wife Debra Saunders, and got plugged into his books. My interest in the work of the CBC was piqued from there.

Shortly thereafter, I took a group of guys to see a showing of CBC’s first documentary, Lines That Divide, on Berkeley’s campus where I was doing my PhD. But the personal connection for supporting and championing the work of the CBC came just a few short months later.

As a poor and married graduate student trying to make ends meet on a budget, my wife, Angela, came across an ad for egg donation. We went to San Francisco, to a conference room that was booked for a group of young women to come listen to someone from the IVF industry tell about how great egg “donation” was and about the couples we were going to help provide with a baby.

We proceeded with that process and filled out all of the forms about medical history. We were matched with a couple in Denver who were elated to meet with my wife. After submitting more paperwork, we were reviewed by their doctors. At the time, Angela was taking medication for migraines. They assured us there was nothing wrong with the medication she took and the medication they were going to give her as part of the egg donation, but still we felt uneasy about the process.

We thought about it, prayed about it, and took some time to process the implications. Angela eventually asked her personal physician about it. Immediately, he was nearly apoplectic, saying, “If you combine these two types of medication, you’re at very high risk of a stroke.” This was never told to us in the egg “donation” process. There was no well-informed “informed consent” in that process. The process was simply, “You’re going to help somebody. Don’t worry about it. It’s not going to hurt you.”

We have a moral responsibility to stay informed in such processes and to inform others when they may be unaware of the potential danger they face. CBC is really the guiding light in a lot of these fields. And sometimes the only light speaking and educating people on issues, events, stories we need to hear.

This is a tough job. On many of the issues, the CBC is just trying to take away someone’s dream, right? Deny a couple a child they can’t have otherwise. Deny a poor college student a way to make some extra money to pay for her books. Deny a mother a chance to provide a couple a chance to be parents, while making some money to provide for her own children.

Deny someone the chance to die when and how they choose. Or maybe deny someone the chance to live forever through computers, like the movie Chappie, or some other life-augmenting mechanism. The CBC is against creating life, freedom, free markets, even science(!), and the pursuit of happiness, right? That’s certainly what the other side would want you to believe.

But the truth is, this is about our humanity, about protecting the vulnerable, about true human flourishing, about our common human good. It’s about a truly human future.

We don’t shy away from challenges because they’re hard. Jennifer certainly hasn’t. She has taken so much verbal abuse on panel after panel, going into tough environments to change minds. And she has changed minds in these environments. Why? Because the other side of the story is compelling and needs to be heard.

Maggie’s Story is just one example of many that need to be told. Maggie “donated” her eggs a number of times, only to develop Stage IV breast cancer at a young age with no family history, which is why she was selected to give eggs in the first place.

Or Brittany Maynard’s story, with her husband fighting the wrong battle. The CBC actually broke the story that she “donated” eggs a number of times and developed a rare form of terminal brain cancer. But her husband fought for her to take her own life rather than questioning why she had the cancer in the first place.

That could have been my story—taking care of my wife who had a stroke before she was 30. Or breast cancer. Or not being able to have her own kids. Turning to surrogacy and egg donation. But that only perpetuates a cycle of fertility issues.

Fortunately for us, this wasn’t our story. We became informed because of the CBC.

We need more people to become informed. We need you to help us get there. How? Well, there’s social media. You can like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. You can put us at the first of your news feeds to read all the great articles that are put out by the CBC, repost them in your own news feeds. Tell your friends! And not just on Facebook, but in person. Watch and show our films.

But we also need your financial help. I’m reluctant simply to ask you to give money to support our work. That can be difficult. In my line of work as a real estate developer, I ask for money all the time, but that’s easy: I point to the returns, the track record, and the possible outcomes of what you can do with your money. So that’s what I’m going to do here.

Invest in the CBC. I can assure you the return on your investment is very promising. Look at our track record—the films produced, the broad-based exposure of these issues, and the impact of our message, educating the public, telling the other side of the story. We need your help to get that message out to the next poor college student considering egg donation, or to that stay-at-home military wife contemplating surrogacy.

1. Coldhearted Sperm “Donor” Glad to No Longer be “Donating”

This story caught my attention because of the sheer callousness it demonstrates in a person who donated his sperm to “help others” have a baby. A happily married father of two who is now a physician laments a law in the U.K. that allows children born of donor sperm or eggs to know their biological identity. He writes, “I am relieved that I donated before 2005 and children conceived using my donated sperm do not have the right to know their parentage. After all, only a minority of them, a discontented minority, feel all their problems in life would be resolved if only they knew who their father was.” So according to him, children don’t have a right to know who their biological parents are—and if they do want to know, it is only because they have some grievance. Not only are his arguments heartless, they are increasingly pointless. As access to DNA testing becomes more and more widespread, the possibility for donors to remain anonymous fades.

2. Let There Be Light!

A new discovery has just revealed that an “explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.” Teresa Woodruff, a researcher at Northwestern University and an ovarian expert (I’ve followed her work on advancements in egg freezing for years), says this is a remarkable finding and will aid fertility medicine in selecting healthy eggs and embryos. While such a use of this new discovery is problematic—it will most likely continue the path of super ovulating women, and both testing and discarding human embryos—it is an amazing discovery that when life begins there is light.

3. Custody Battle Decided in Favor of Gay Couple against Surrogate

American Gordon Lake and his Spanish husband Manuel Santos have won their custody battle for baby Carmen. The baby was born in January 2015, in Thailand from anonymous egg donation, sperm from Lake, and the surrogate womb of Patidta Kusolsang. It has been reported that Kusolsang was concerned about the baby’s wellbeing after learning that the baby was going to a gay couple. Thailand has been at the center of several high-profile surrogacy scandals, which has led to a ban on surrogacy. Gay or straight, married or single, surrogacy continues to demonstrate the many pitfalls in conception by contract. The way forward is for international policies that stop all surrogacy.

4. A Call for Federal Regulation of Sperm Donation

Wendy Kramer, Director of the Donor Sibling Registry, has a piece in Time this week calling for federal regulation of sperm donation. With recent news reports of lawsuits and scandals over people receiving sperm from men with tainted pasts and bad medical histories, Kramer suggests that independent regulatory oversight is needed to ensure “accurate record keeping, limits on the number of children born for any one donor, and compulsory genetic and psychological testing of all donors” and to “protect donors, recipients and offspring.” I understand the desire to address these scandals, but I question whether this will ensure that the children are truly all right.

5. Not Dead Yet Celebrates 20 Years

Disability rights group Not Dead Yet this week marked 20 years of grassroots advocacy opposing the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Working side-by-side with both religious and secular groups, they have provided powerful testimony of the ways in which many of those who are living with disabilities feel the pressure of laws that suggest some lives are not worth living. I’m sure they would be grateful for any anniversary contribution to support their continued efforts.

Typically, a cold chain is the transportation of things that have a limited shelf-life. Think food heading to your local grocery store or certain types of drugs that need to be kept at a specific temperature while being shipped and stored in order to maintain the effectiveness of the drug.

With the growing global markets of eggs, sperm, and embryos, companies like Cyroport, which specializes in the transport of biological materials, promote their technique as the best for maintaining the quality controls necessary to prevent harm and damage to early embryos and gametes.

According to the article,

Frozen cells don’t just need to be cold; they need to be cryogenically cold—like -240 degrees Fahrenheit . . . If sperm or embryos get above even -184 degrees Fahrenheit, it’s warm enough to restart some of the cellular process. It’s even more dire for eggs, which are full of liquid that can form razor-life ice crystals if they warm in the wrong conditions.

The IVF industry depends heavily on quality controls and quality assurances every step of the way because of the high failure rates of high-tech pregnancies.

What it really means is that the desire to have a child is so strong that many are willing to put early human life in harms way at nearly every step of the way.

In Malta, a country that has been reconsidering its laws on egg and sperm donation and surrogacy, the Commissioner for Children recently stated that egg and sperm donation should remain banned in the country. It’s a strong recommendation—and one that we believe should be heeded. What’s particularly refreshing about this situation, however, is that it’s the Children’s Commissioner that is speaking out.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is tasked with promoting the best interests and welfare of children. By intentionally severing children from their biological ties, the practice of egg and sperm donation undermines their welfare. These children long to know and be known by their biological parents, to have access to their medical histories (which includes vital, sometimes lifesaving information), and better understand their origins.

Too often the practice of egg and sperm donation is focused solely on the desires of the parents and how much they want to have a child. But the children are the ones most affected by it and often have few allies in their corner. It’s great news that an entire government office is speaking out on their behalf—and the tiny nation of Malta is setting a big example that the rest of the world would be wise to follow.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing for gay marriage in all fifty states, we’ve spent a lot of time warning you about the new push for the false idea of “family equality.” Proponents of this idea hold that all couples have an equal right to children.

Earlier this week, a New York Post columnist covering yet another modern family custody battle had this to say: “Marriage isn’t the only legal procedure getting a makeover by same-sex couples. When gay families break up, custody fights sometimes require a lot of explanation — and new precedent in the courts.”

In this particular situation, a gay couple donated sperm to a lesbian couple resulting in a child that the quartet planned to raise together. The whole scheme lasted, ironically, only nine months. And now there’s a tug-of-war over who gets custody of the child.

Proponents of “family equality” are championing the notion that the law should be “biologically neutral” in such cases. In other words, biology is unimportant and only a minor facet in determining the fate and story of the children in question.

But as both the data and the personal stories of children born through egg and sperm donation and surrogacy reveal, biology plays a hugely important role. It’s important for knowing both one’s medical history and it’s important for discovering one’s identity. These children long to know—and be known—by their biological parents.

In the aforementioned case, the child is biologically related to two of the individuals (one of the gay men and one of the lesbian women). But the way in which this child was conceived resembles nothing short of a buffet line, with the parents picking and choosing how they wanted to go about parenting, with little concern for the eventual child in question and an insatiable desire to satisfy their personal desires for parenthood.

The fallout from the brave new world of family equality is just beginning and will manifest itself in all sorts of ugly and unforeseen ways. In most custody cases, the best interest of the child is the ultimate trump card. Shamefully, when it comes to third party assisted reproduction, that principle was compromised long ago.

1. Nepal Bans Commercial Surrogacy

The Supreme Court of Nepal has banned commercial surrogacy in the country—delivering a win for women and children alike. Some commentators are twisting the news saying it would negatively effect gay couples in Israel who previously relied on Nepal’s surrogacy business. As we have long held, no one—gay, straight, married, or single—has a right to a child via surrogacy—in Nepal, or elsewhere. The decision is under appeal, which we will monitor and keep you informed.

2. Vermont Opens it First Surrogacy Agency

One step forward in Nepal, a step backwards here in the United States. The state of Vermont has opened its first surrogacy agency. Vermont Surrogacy Agency will pay women $25,000 to participate in the practice and have already “matched” three couples with surrogates. While those in favor of the practice are hailing this as a win for family equality, we mourn for the women and children who will be hurt in this process. And there’s not enough money in the world to make that right.

3. New Bill in California Declares Sperm and Egg Donors Not to Be Legal Parents

A new bill in the California State Senate to adopt a State Assembly measure to “modernize” the state’s laws will “protect families, particularly gay and lesbian couples, using assisted reproduction methods and would ensure that sperm and egg donors are not legally considered a parent.” It’s hard to see how a bill that legally redefines what is biologically undisputable can be taken seriously, but welcome to the new age of family equality. Modern? Perhaps. Truthful? Certainly not!

4. First Dutch Donor-Egg Baby Born

Earlier this week the first woman to undergo egg donation within the country gave birth to a baby girl. Previously, egg donation was illegal in the country, and women looking to conceive had to look outside the country. Advocates of the practice laud this as progress. If progress is supporting a practice that relies on the commodification of the female body, no thank you. We’ll pass.

5. Physician Assisted Suicide Group Fined in Minnesota

Final Exit Network, a pro physician assisted suicide group, was fined $30,000 on Monday for assisting in the 2007 death of a Minnesota woman. The woman they aided in killing was not terminally ill, but suffered from chronic pain. Most advocates of the practice hold that physician assisted suicide should be legal but limited to those in the final stages of their lives. In this case neither was true. Just further evidence that even the supposed regulations and safety precautions will be ignored by those intent on using the power of medicine to kill.

When my children were younger we spent a lot of time at our local public library. We went to the weekly story time and the annual fairs, joined the summer reading programs to win prizes for books read, and spent a lot of time sitting on rugs and tiny chairs reading, reading, and reading.

It’s a pretty common policy that children’s libraries allow children to checkout an unlimited number of books. We had a rule in our family that you could check out the number of books that coincided with your age. When you were three you got to take home three books, and so on. This made everyone excited for their next birthday when they were allowed to check out one more book! It also made it easy for me to be sure that each week we returned the correct number of books. I would simply add up the children’s ages and make sure we had that many books in our library basket. When they reached a certain age, our family policy shifted to “you can check out as many books as you can carry.” Often the tower of books came just below their eyes so they could barely see to walk.

Back when we were spending those hours at the library, I rarely had to scrutinize the books they checked out. But today there is a new genre of books written to young children on the topic of assisted reproductive technologies. Books like An Itsy Bitsy Gift of Life: An Egg Donor Story and The Pea that was Me: An Egg Donation Story and many more new books that address egg donation and surrogacy and the whole range of modern family arrangements. For example, there is a growing lists of books about ‘me and my two mommies/daddies’ as well as books that address same-sex parenting such as What Makes a Baby, which is a book that is “truly inclusive” as it addresses a transgender man who conceived with a woman using donor sperm.

If I were a young mother today, I’d think twice before having my children select these books to bring home for story time. Not because I’m a prude and don’t want my children to learn about how babies are made, but because of what I know to be true about third-party conception in particular and assisted reproductive technologies more broadly. These facts are not part of these warm and fuzzy children’s books about the new modern ways families are made (and should not be due to age inappropriateness).

It’s funny, reading the blurbs on several of these books, how much they mirror the advertising and hype that accompanies reproductive technologies marketed to adults. They talk about, “the good lady” and the “generous” egg donor. They use language about giving the gift of life and about how so many people came together to make the baby—it takes a village.

The truth is, though, the children reading these books about themselves or their friends will grow up. Perhaps they will question this delivered narrative, like some adoptees do, and will want to know who, exactly, that good lady was, who it is that looks like them and who maybe has similar interests and talents. They will learn about other people like them who are organizing and speaking out with their stories. They may even stumble upon our films and hear Maggie’s story, or find our writings on what is wrong with egg donation and third party conception.

They may, in fact, grow up to write new children’s books that will tell the other side of the story of how babies should not be made.

Maggie, a ten-times egg donor in her early twenties, was diagnosed with breast cancer aged 32. It spread to her liver and bones. To hear her speak of her shame “in admitting that I willingly chose to do something that I thought I was informed about…” is heartbreaking. And to then zoom out from the focus on her tragedy, to see the context within the billion dollar fertility industry, becomes enraging.

Maggie emphasizes that she was not coerced to donate her eggs. But clearly she was courted and flattered by the clinic, as one of the “special ones,” as a member of their “donor family.” It did not occur to her to say no to donating again and again, because in her mind she would then be saying “no, I don’t want to help people.” She was never informed that the recipient of her eggs could then sell them. At the time it was an experience of altruism on her part, and what she thought was caring and professional treatment by the fertility clinic.

And she was crushed when, while discussing treatment for her cancer, her own primary care physician told her that the clinic doctors certainly had access to the knowledge that exposure to fertility drugs is known to increase chances of certain types of cancer. This was her first confirmation that “this person I thought cared about me [the clinic doctor] probably was just using me.” Maggie does not accuse, but it is disturbing that her breast lump was initially dismissed; since she was so young, it could not be cancer. She was provided with that first mammogram by the fertility clinic. They also knew she had precancerous cells detected during a pap smear. They nonetheless continued administering fertility drugs and harvesting her eggs.

Judging by the clamor of the fertility industry to criticize her films, we know Jennifer Lahl is onto something. Elizabeth Falker, a lawyer who profits from arranging assisted reproduction contracts, begs: “please don’t see it [Eggsploitation] if you are considering either becoming an egg donor or using an egg donor to build a family.” And she requests that the movie industry does not endorse Lahl’s work. After all, she says, “many a Hollywood family has been created through the gift of egg donation.”

Many others in the fertility industry dismiss the stories in Eggsploitation as being insignificant. They want to reduce women’s experiences to the lesser categories of “anecdotal evidence” and “scare tactics” – ironically, using their own reassuring anecdotal evidence that they have never personally seen a donor die or develop cancer – and women’s stories apparently cannot compete with “scientific evidence.”

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence. There is no long-term data available, and none is being gathered, on the effects of egg donation from healthy, young women. So the ‘informed consent’ process is a sham. Right now, Lahl says, all we have is women’s stories – and the fertility industry wants to keep it that way. So Maggie’s story needs to be told. She tells it courageously and intelligently, objectively, with a clear and balanced hindsight. Watch this film, and those that came before it (Eggsploitation, Anonymous Father’s Day, and Breeders?) to see what it is that the billion dollar fertility business doesn’t want you do know.

In an article that reads more like fiction that it does news, a prominent Nigerian has expressed his support of the practice of surrogacy and his puzzlement over Nigeria’s prohibition of it.

According to Reno Omokri, “Every civilized nation accepts and promotes this practice as a humane option for childless couples.”

Sadly—though perhaps unsurprisingly—Mr. Omokri seems blissfully unaware of the true international outrage over the practice or the fact that Nigeria is already a target of biological colonialism and the legalization of surrogacy would only further contribute to this.

For starters, acceptance of surrogacy is no marker of a civilized society. In fact, that’s why it’s prohibited in many countries throughout Europe and various states in the U.S. It’s westerners looking to exploit the developing world that promote surrogacy as a means of social progress, but as the Baby Gammy case in Thailand and the women who have died through surrogacy in India illustrate, the practice is built upon the exploitation of the poor and places vulnerable women and children at risk.

Furthermore, as Mr. Omokri fails to mention, his fellow citizens have already been exploited through the practice of egg donation, where young Nigerian women, sometimes 11 or 12 years of age, have been coerced into selling their eggs for a sometimes as little as $12 USD. Compare that to the thousands of dollars young women in the U.S. are incentivized with to sell their eggs. This is nothing short of biological colonialism where the rich can afford to buy and they prey on the weak to sell.

A true marker of civilization is a country whose laws and its people work to protect the most vulnerable and weakest among them. By prohibiting surrogacy, Nigeria actually sets an example to the rest of the world to follow. Mr. Omokri’s proposal would only reverse that.

This is a guest post by H. Rex Greene, M.D. Dr. Greene is board certified in Internal Medicine, Hematology, Oncology, and Hospice-Palliative Medicine

Maggie’s Story is another cautionary tale of the scientific and ethical gray zone of “assisted reproduction.” In her early twenties, she made ten egg “donations” and received minimal compensation. At age thirty-two she presented with stage IV breast cancer. Did she understand the risks of egg donation? As a healthy, normal volunteer it’s unclear if ANY risks are acceptable, but per her description she wasn’t adequately informed of risks. Hence, she did not give informed consent for multiple procedures that may have led to cancer. Breast, ovarian, and colon cancer have been reported in egg donors. This is a bigger issue than a mercenary clinic violating informed consent to support its business model, an obvious conflict of interest.

Who stood up for her? Who was her ombudsman? Maggie’s case illustrates mercenary manipulation of a kind-hearted, generous young woman, who received a pittance in compensation for a very valuable commodity, her eggs. She was bombarded with multiple requests beyond the established safe limits of six donations because she was a “great donor.” The language was deceptive, great for whom? She likely made hundreds of thousands of dollars for infertility clinics. Her altruism was abused in service of an industry intent on profiting from her donated tissues and not sharing the rewards.

They even exploited ethical prohibitions against “selling” eggs, which is illegal in some other countries. The donor (Maggie) can’t profit; the recipient (the clinic) can be handsomely rewarded. In fact, human tissues are the property of the donor, who is entitled to determine how they are used and receive downstream financial benefits. If society doesn’t want egg farming it’s not a question of how much women get paid for their eggs; the practice must be banned as it inevitably leads to exploitation as in Maggie’s case. She takes the risks. The clinic collects the money.

As Maggie tragically demonstrates, with a relatively new technology the long-term risks are unknown. Why should a healthy, normal individual incur any risk of developing cancer? During the procedure young women are bombarded with hormones to provoke multiple ovulations. Hormone exposures correlate with a number of cancers and the amount of stimulation far exceeds the normal menstrual cycle. In addition, there are other short-term risks, hyper-stimulation syndrome, ovarian rupture, torsion, shock, hypotension and potentially death. But long term it’s reasonable to conclude that immense hormonal stimulation can trigger cancer. Rather than permit these abuses to continue the practice should be banned and other aspects of the infertility industry tightly controlled.

1. Another International Surrogacy Arrangement Goes Awry

Reutersis reporting that a Thai surrogate has changed her mind and is refusing to release the child she carried for a gay couple in the United States. The couple is claiming that the conflict is now “destroying” their lives. Stories like this are making their ways into the news almost monthly now—and these are only the ones we hear. As we continue to remind the world, regulation will not solve contractual disputes or protect the child in question. The only way to end this drama is to put an end to the practice altogether.

2. Chinese Sperm Market Expands

Juhuasuan, a Chinese company affiliated with Alibaba, the Chinese eBay, has now expanded its services to include the buying and selling of sperm. In just 48 hours the site received more than 22,000 responses. While advocates of the program are lauding the fact that thousands of infertile Chinese couples will now be able to have children, those of us who know the realities of this practice know that the pool of children who long to know their biological fathers is about to expand dramatically.

3. India Expands Maternity Leave in Surrogacy Cases

A high court judge in India has ruled that mothers whose children are born via surrogacy are still entitled to maternity leave. In his decision the judge noted that “There appears to be an inertia in recognizing that motherhood can be attained, even via surrogacy…a commissioning mother needs to bond with the child and at times take over the role of a breast-feeding mother, immediately after the delivery of the child.” How shortsighted to recognize the importance of the mother-child bond, yet fail to recognize that the entire practice of surrogacy is designed to intentionally sever just that.

4. New Zealand Health Committee to Consider Voluntary Euthanasia

The national health committee will hold hearings to consider public opinion on voluntary euthanasia. This decision comes in response to a pro-euthanasia advocacy group that garnered over 9,000 signatures in support of it. How tragic that this health committee is even giving this consideration—sacrificing principles to public opinion.

5. CBC in the News: Eggsploitation: Maggie’s Story Now Available

Our first ever documentary short film, Eggsploitation: Maggie’s Story, about one woman’s journey through egg donation…and its consequences, is now available for purchase. We invite you to stand with Maggie—and the many thousands of women who are risk from the practice of egg donation—by watching and sharing her story. Watch and spread the word!

Eggsploitation: Maggie’s Story follows one woman’s journey of learning about “helping” others have a child they desperately want, what she discovered in becoming an egg donor, and the consequences that followed. Maggie was told how special she was, but was never informed of the risks egg donation posed to her own health and wellbeing. She was used repeatedly for others’ gain, but when things turned bad, she was left on her own to navigate tests, treatments, surgeries, and an unknown prognosis. Maggie’s harrowing story shows how the medical professionals she trusted ignored abnormal health signals along the way, all for their own financial profit. Sadly, Maggie joins the ranks of other young women harmed and hurt by egg “donation,” and left forgotten.

In all the slick marketing around egg donation there is never any mention of the real and serious potential health risks to the young women who serve as compensated donors. One of the many glaring, dirty little secrets is that there has never been a single major, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the otherwise healthy young women who are enticed with large sums of money to sell their eggs to make the dreams of others come true.

Janice Raymond, Ph.D., author of Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom and Professor Emerita at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says Maggie’s Story is “a personal story that is much larger than one woman’s experience. Maggie serves as a warning to all of us concerned about the harm done to women through egg donation. An urgently needed and articulate indictment of the world of eggsploitation.”

Feminist activist Melinda Tankard Reist calls out the multi-billion dollar infertility industry stating, “Many others in the fertility industry dismiss the stories in Eggsploitation as being insignificant. They want to reduce women’s experiences to the lesser categories of ‘anecdotal evidence’ and ‘scare tactics’ – ironically, using their own reassuring anecdotal evidence that they have never personally seen a donor die or develop cancer.”